161 Comments

It's disconcerting when you realize that even though GM was a success story most GOPers (and their pundits) still don't believe it because their narrative is so heavy that their house of cards falls if they even vaguely admit to GM's success.

Exactly, it's easier to drone up Rushbos, or, Hannities bar, and get your daily drone beat of what exactly you should thinking, blaming, and how it's fits the narrative instead of critical thinking and considering different and objective sources. Doing some research, read a few articles instead just one, and come to an informed conclusion, yourself. And be able to defend it rationally. But, of course, this does take time and some skill. Understanding the more complex issues that face America is extremely difficult for that very reason.

Personally, I form my own opinions when I have all the facts. Until then, I take a position instead I gather information. Finding the hard factual truth is an effort and it does take a different mindset. It's what I do, and because I'm a design engineer, it's become natural for me realize what it is I know, what I don't know, and last, what I think MAY be true. Getting to the bottom of a problem can be an endless journey ending on an assumption. But then again I assume I did just write this. Did I?

who cares about stockholders?? they are gamblers and get what they get. investing is a game .. uaw is actual people trying to make a living. stockholders make a living regardless of what the stockmarket does. they just get mad if they cant afford a mercedes.(foreign car)

That's a badge of honor. The more negative, the more you believe in self-resposibility and the more you're capable of reason.

Wanna tell me about the GM "success" story? A cyclical rebound in auto-sales, is that it? Filing bankruptcy and wiping out shareholders and 70% of bondholders' stake? The loses for the taxpayer? The emergence from bankruptcy? But are you unaware the companies enter and then emerge from bankruptcy all the time, without government bullying and taxpayer losses? Which part? Maybe it's the government pushed Volt? LOL. Ford, now that's a success.

Hey, I got it. If GM went down and Chrysler went down then the parts suppliers would have gone down and then Honda USA and Toyota USA and Mercedes USA would have gone down and then we would all have to buy cars made in,,, oooops. Never mind.

I'm not sure of the exact figures, but I'd venture to bet some 40 - 50% of all new cars last year were leases, primarily because many cannot afford to buy them. What are automakers going to do when 90% can't afford to buy them? And when we're shopping for other automakers?

Absolutely genetic - without necessary resources our species does not survive. We are all possessed of the desire to successfully formulate an economic logic; this desire is undeniable and the basis of a machine that lives totally outside anything cerebral.

Do you need a license to drive that machine or does it stay on the sidewalk?
Actually most of there sales were in China. Have you read one of those Chinese leases? Talk about fine ideograms?

I am sure you will excuse me. I originally learned my economics from a guy named Alan Greenspan, and we know how dumb he turned out to be, don't we? Fortunately I didn't stop there. So, what was your point exactly?

There are policies that affect the markets. Economics, I recall relates to the study of the exchange of good and services, which usually progresses into consideration of policies that influence such transactions, I don't recall studies of biological economics? There certainly are a variety of philosophies regarding, human macroeconomics.

I remember John Russell, the western actor, being in the class, but were you there also? I recall he taught a variety of courses. Crosby taught some of the basic courses, and then there was Murray Rothbard.

We are all possessed of the desire to obtain necessary resources; the plan we formulate in response to environmental circumstance forms the basis of our economic logic; it is all very much biological.

All economies are regional; external forces can impact that local or regional economy. What you refer to as economics here is actually national policy - it is not economics at all but the manipulation of various local markets to the benefit, generally, of the few.

This is not a redefinition of terms; it's an attempt to discern. And national policy is nothing more than the political economy of old; it's not a local economy or a regional economy unless you require political favor. On the philosophical level it fails; on the theoretical level in terms of the importation of wealth, it fails; and not only does it fail, it continuously seeks new avenues, thereby amplifying this majority failure to the enhanced benefit of the few.

Taxpayers are still owed $132.9 billion from companies like General Motors and the American International Group Inc. who benefited from the financial bailout. Christy Romero, the acting special inspector general for the $700 billion bailout said that some of that money may never be recovered.

Romero says that the bailout, which started in September of 2008, could last for several more years. Some bailout programs, like the effort to help homeowners avoid foreclosure, will last until 2017 and will cost the government at least another $50 billion.

According to the Huffington Post, the American International Group Inc. owes close to $50 billion. General Motors Co. owes $25 billion and Ally Financial Inc. about $12 billion.

USA Today reports that after the 2008 financial crisis Congress authorized $700 billion to lend out to companies in need. About $413 billion was lent out to financial companies and automakers. So far, 77%, or about $318 billion, has been paid back.

Treasury spokesman Matt Anderson said that it could take years for the Treasury to break even. The Huffington Post notes that the Treasury would have to sell its stock for GM at $53.98 to break even. As of Wednesday, GM’s stock was at $24.92.

Anderson said:

“We’ll continue to balance the important goals of exiting our investments as soon as practicable and maximizing value for taxpayers.”
Romero’s report also uncovered fraud related to TARP. Criminal charges were brought against 10 people during the fourth quarter. Altogether, criminal charges have been brought against 61 people for fraud in relation to TARP.

I dont care how many GM cars are built
I dont care how many GM cars are built in America
I dont care how many GM cars are sold
I dont care how many GM cars are sold in America
I dont care how many GM loans are paid off

I care about Americans WORKING

If it were not for Rs alec-grover-koch
we would be taxing the rich & the corporations
and creating an FDR type WPA & CCC to put another
few million people to work

What a sham cash for clunkers was - no more used cars on the roads for the lower class - instead our taxes chipped in to clunking them in - so that some higher being (wealthier than me schmuck) could buy a spanking new vehicle and a corporation could make out instead of fall into free market oblivion

Yes, the number one automaker because once again, American's are buying new cars to replace their somewhat used car and giving themselves the gift of a nice car payment. Wages have not gone up that much, gas prices are rising due to speculation as is food,but it is great to see that some people did not learn a lesson by the recession.
Keep saying how much you hate the banks while you keep charging on your credit card and putting interest in their pockets...
Are people really this financially dim?

I suppose most any company could do well if Americans GENEROUSLY subsidized them to build factories and move much production to the Three Georges Valley where labor is almost free, no EPA, no OSHA and no human rights.

Great point...so unless I am reading the original post without any thought
GM was bailed out
GM is doing great
Americans are buying cars, increasing debt- unless everyone is now wealthy
GM is building elsewhere-China- helping their economy- while we are continuing to borrow from China- I don't know how much we owe them now-then folks grumble that China is taking us over...while we are borrowing so we can say that we are economically healthy
Great points Gumby!

A: Dontcha just hate propagandists who selectively portray some corporate bailouts as good and others as bad, and who try to place blame for same on one party or the other, when in fact ALL corporate bailouts screw the taxpayers, and BOTH political parties share accountability for serving their corporate masters rather than their constituents?

ahh theft like Halliburton getting those no bid contracts, that's theft, this is Americans helping each other out and keeping our jobs alive, but people like you depend on people not being able to tell the difference

Ooop- there goes the "other people did bad things too!" defense. Knew it had to come sooner or later. Your preconceived notion is that I do not think Halliburton's no bid contracts are a bad thing. They are. Why is it hard for you to think objectively? All corporate welfare is bad. Now back to the topic.

No that's not what I said, I didn't say two bad things i said Halliburton bad, because it took money from the country and costs us jobs, GM good because it saved jobs in this country, I am saying that saying all cars are the same because they have four tires and a motor and ignoring the fact that many are safer or have better fuel economy is exactly the kind of thinking that is killing us, people think buying a huge SUV is no different than buying a hybrid, that is what's wrong with this country now, and you are trying to promote that because you support the 1%.

I've been sitting here saying the US government should have taken over GM completely and fired the board of directors and the executives, bailed out the production lines and kept the workers being paid, the only difference being saving $100 million dollars in executive compensation. Sounds like I support the 1% wholeheartedly! I'm just whipping the horse of corporate greed like there is no tomorrow! I need a new account now, because you realized I am supporting the 1%.

You are awfully emotional and snippy for someone who likes facts and rationality. And wait a second, did Halliburton outsource their jobs or something?

I am not defending Halliburton, I am saying they are despicable and don't deserve our tax dollars any more than GM did. For the sake of the rest of society, please break out of your shell of groupthink. There you go dumping on the feds for "wasting our money"

sure you think we would be better off if all those GM workers were out of work, im VA we have the GOP trying to stick the state's hand down people's pants and this is what you are worried about? It might not of been perfect, but anything that many GOPers hated couldn't have been all bad

Ah, so you're basing your judgment of a decision based on the reactions of a group (the enemy group) you disagree with.

For. The. Last. Time.

I most definitely did NOT SAY I WANTED GM WORKERS OUT OF JOBS. Where did I say that? I said the government should have nationalized the company instead of allowing the board room to siphon off untold fortunes in salaries. What about this sounds like I want people out of jobs?

I see what's going on here. You're engaging in simple groupthink and identity sociology. You'll believe anything your leaders tell you to think. You're no different from the Republicans during the Bush administration, any criticism of any Bush policy meant you were some commie whacko who hated America. All a dictator needs to do to gain power and blind followers is to get people to hate each other...

This is the best we can do? All of this OWS energy and we can't accomplish a single thing. Why on earth do we have to suffer through more of this GOP nonsense? Why couldn't we have turned our energy into actual support for a candidate that believes in something we do, like Anderson. But instead, we are stuck with this loser who is 99.9999% the same as Romney. I'm so angry I could scream.

"In April of 2010, the GM CEO announced that the company had repaid all of it's loans from the government in full. The implication was that the government was no longer assisting GM. The reality was that most of the preferred stock purchased by the government had been transferred to common stock to free up capital for GM. This allowed GM to virtually use TARP money from stock purchases to pay off it's initial loans from the Bush administration. After GM repaid the actual loan, the Government still had $44 Billion invested in GM and owned a majority of the company. President Obama used his weekly address to back the statement that GM had paid back it's loans, although he did note that the government still held stock in the company.

In November of 2010, GM was again made public in an Initial Public Offering (IPO) of stock. They sold 365 million shares of GM at roughly $33 dollars a share, paid the government back over $11 billion dollars, and reduced the governments ownership of the company to 33%."

"In 2008, GM and Chrysler were not prepared for a Chapter 11 filing. President George W. Bush’s economic advisers studied the firms’ numbers and determined they might be forced to liquidate without a loan. So Bush provided a three-month bridge loan, allowing the automakers time to restructure before entering bankruptcy and giving Obama some time to make his own policy choices. There are valid questions about the way Obama and Steve Rattner structured their auto bailout. But GM and Chrysler did eventually enter a managed bankruptcy, which was the endgame that Romney himself recommended.

Specific bailout policies can be disputed, but one fact cannot: No president — Republican or Democrat — would have allowed the economic collapse of the upper Midwest in the midst of a national economic panic. A conservatism that prefers ideology to reality is not particularly conservative. "

No, the question is not difficult - The question is why does the government continue to give millions if not billions of dollars to companies prone to failure when we have a deficite of over 15 trillion dollars.

Instead we need to be increasing our oil supply, reducing our costs associated with higher gasoline prices, so that we can build more oil refineries and nuclear plants to bring gasoline prices down and to make us oil independent so that we can make way for future development of new cleaner technology that's going to take at least another 20 years to develope.

In addition to that with reduced costs, consumer products would cost less, people would have more money to spend, the economy would grow as a result of it and there would be more jobs available.

That's what needs to be done, not more government picking and choosing who will get the next free 500 million dollars so that voters will vote for him and the taxpayers will have to pay for those losses.

Well let me see if I have this right - we are exporting gasoline at our highest point in histroy and with a glut of gasoline it is the "speculators" who are driving the gasoline prices up.

Wonder why that is so? Do you think that it may be because our country is not "oil independent" and we are still "oil dependent" and what happens in the middle east especially with Iran has a big impact on the price of oil.

So if were "oil independent" meaing that we would drill for oil and have oil refineries throughout the country to process this oil, don't you think the price would come down. Yes indeed it would because it would be a lot easier to get the crude oil to the refineries instead of having to ship oil to the few oil refineries located along the golf coast.

Also, by doing this whatever happens in the middle east would have no impact on our oil prices here.

Why is it that the gasoline prices in oil producing countries is around $0.18 to $0.35 a gallon? Gee wonder why - can you answer that question I am not sure I can.

Negativity? Are you kidding me? The numbers of homeless americans are skyrocketing. The numbers of people requesting food stamps are skyrocketing. The numbers of people getting kicked out of their homes by criminal banks are skyrocketing. And you're saying we need more corporate welfare???

I thought OWS could be trusted to be a bastion of sanity, amidst a sea of corporate shilling. So I come here and people are saying corporate welfare is good? It appears I cannot trust anyone anymore, the trolls have taken over the entire site. This is bedlam. The workers can be cared for, give them government jobs. Give them the money outright, I don't care. But giving it to the board room to steal is an outrage on par with treason.

GM gets 60 billion dollars, and saves (by Epa1nter's estimate) 1 million jobs. That's 60,000$ per job. Just give the workers a check for 60 grand each and KEEP IT OUT OF THE GREEDY HANDS of the board room! Shut the doors! Fire the CEO and let the workers take the bailout money, I don't care. NOT a single person in the greedy GM board room deserved a dime of help from the taxpayers and that is exactly what they got! This makes my blood boil, how can you defend something so obviously treasonous??? This is the most outrageously trollish non-troll post I have seen on any site like this! What on earth is going on??

Ending corporate welfare is NOT HYPER LIBERAL!! I can't even fathom what thought produces this conclusion! the occupy movement was founded out of anger at corporate welfare, and here you go defending a treasonous theft of tax money at the hands of corporations?? Rick Wagoner made $15 million dollars on 2008, as the company was going under. How does this make me sound "hyper liberal" to say that corporations should not be dipping their fingers into the US treasury??

What makes you a conservtroll posing as a hyper-liberal is that you won't even accept a reasonable argument from other liberals and progressives. You do not have a monopoly on either the truth or wisdom and a truly open-minded person -- the definition of "liberal" -- wouldn't need to be reminded of that. Coupled with the fact that you have a dumbass username that is barely two days old and the conclusion is obvious.

On its own it doesn't say enough, no. But, as I said, coupled with your hysterical intractability and unwillingness to even acknowledge points raised by people one would assume are your allies, if you're such an ideologically pure Occupier, it all points in the same direction. I've seen the M.O. before. You're being deliberately unreasonable to make a point or to make liberals look like hysterical children. Your motivation doesn't interest me. That you're an obvious troll is just something people should know.

And if, by some odd quirk of nature, you actually are such a knee-jerk, liberal crybaby who perceives the universe as simplistically as the average conservatroll, you're still not worth the effort.

How many more?? Twice his estimate? okay, $30,000 each! That's plenty of severance- and Ford was doing fine! they would have picked up the excess sales volume as GM went under and hired on all the displaced GM workers! Even if the entire company was taken over by the federal government, you can't just have some public-private partnership where the CEO of the company makes 15 million dollars (RICK WAGONER) and they get federal taxpayer money! this is an outrage, and a treasonous disaster. I cannot believe any self respecting member of the Occupy movement would even consider the possibility that the GM welfare was a good thing!

I'm not going to call you or anyone names, I am bewildered by the fact that anyone disagrees with me on this. Corporations should not be getting tax money without a contract to provide deliverables. End of story. No if's, ands, or buts. Giving a corporation a blank check of any kind will result in executive theft.

"In April of 2010, the GM CEO announced that the company had repaid all of it's loans from the government in full. The implication was that the government was no longer assisting GM. The reality was that most of the preferred stock purchased by the government had been transferred to common stock to free up capital for GM. This allowed GM to virtually use TARP money from stock purchases to pay off it's initial loans from the Bush administration. After GM repaid the actual loan, the Government still had $44 Billion invested in GM and owned a majority of the company. President Obama used his weekly address to back the statement that GM had paid back it's loans, although he did note that the government still held stock in the company.

In November of 2010, GM was again made public in an Initial Public Offering (IPO) of stock. They sold 365 million shares of GM at roughly $33 dollars a share, paid the government back over $11 billion dollars, and reduced the governments ownership of the company to 33%."

"In 2008, GM and Chrysler were not prepared for a Chapter 11 filing. President George W. Bush’s economic advisers studied the firms’ numbers and determined they might be forced to liquidate without a loan. So Bush provided a three-month bridge loan, allowing the automakers time to restructure before entering bankruptcy and giving Obama some time to make his own policy choices. There are valid questions about the way Obama and Steve Rattner structured their auto bailout. But GM and Chrysler did eventually enter a managed bankruptcy, which was the endgame that Romney himself recommended.

Specific bailout policies can be disputed, but one fact cannot: No president — Republican or Democrat — would have allowed the economic collapse of the upper Midwest in the midst of a national economic panic. A conservatism that prefers ideology to reality is not particularly conservative. "

But now that those workers are working for themselves you guys are kind of screwed because this stroy won't stop it will just get better. You will try to hide it, you guys never talk about HD becaused they fixed their problems by bring in the workforce in the decision making. You guys hate that you think your so smart, born at the finish line and think you won a race.

You mean you aren't? How on earth am I sounding like an "agent of the 1%" By demanding that the GM board of directors doesn't get any of our free tax money, that it all should have gone to the workers of GM? What am I missing here, and how do you not agree? You are cleverly defending the 1%ers enormous tax subsidized salaries and telling me I am a troll. Nice.

Yes, both parties of Republicans. Get rid of them all. They are all Republicans, doing the blind bidding of the 1% and ignoring the will of the people. I honestly don't understand how any principle-driven liberal can support something like the auto bailout.

I am saying here for the record that the money should never have been given to GM. To send the people's money to the board room of a corporation is inexcusable and a treasonous act. Anyone claiming this is in any way the right thing is not a part of OWS in my mind, as we have always been against corporate welfare.

your wrong.. helping gm kept a hundred thousand jobs right here in america.. helping the banks on the otherhand only increased outsourcing and still eliminated a couple million jobs.. you must see that difference. all bail out money should have been required to result in jobs.. not bonuses for wall street execs.. but keeping the companies than employ people inside this country should be the role of government

So GM is wonderful in your eyes?
Okay, so government/corporation partnership is good.
Did you know that one of the first things GM did after sugar daddy Obama ( your lord and master) Shoveled money borrowed from the PRC was build a new factory in Brazil? Did the Brazilian people use their money in that bailout?

The issue, in case you missed it, is not the wonderfulness of GM, but the wisdom of the bailout loans.

One million domestic jobs were saved. One MILLION. During an economic collapse to boot. All of the loan money has been paid back. The public isn't out one thin dime, and in fact has saved billions in unemployment payments and food stamps that would have resulted from no bailout. That's what Repubitards opposed.

Would you rather have seen all those one million jobs disappear? Greater national debt as a result? And the permanent disappearance of the industrial infrastructure to support new jobs in the future?

Well lets see if I am "conflating" as you state 1 grant + 1 grant = 2 grants.

We are not comparing apples to oranges here what we are comparing is taxpayer money that was selectively given to two companies who failed in producing "green energy". Now the taxpayer is on the hook.

Why couldn't this money just be handed out to the geneal population to help improve the economy. Oh, I forgot that's not how the Obimination works - he only helps out big businesses and forgets about the little guy.

Well, let, see, Solyndra was begin by George Bush. It was a promising technology. And it would have moved Solar power generation ahead hugely. China undercut the price of solar panels on the world market before Solyndra could achieve lower prices by scaling up. Solyndra's failure represents 0.6% of the government's investment in green technology. And since government investment has always overall generated between $3 and $10 dollars return into the economy for every $1 that it has invested, it needs only a 30% percent success rate to break even and move the country ahead in getting us off of oil and other carbon based energy sources.

If the government would DOUBLE the investment in green energy companies developing products and doing research it still wouldn't match China's budget. It is the least we should be doing. Furthermore, government investment is made in those areas specifically that are riskier than the private market is willing to do. That is EXACTLY the purpose of government investment, not because it is the safest route to go. If success were guaranteed, there would be no need for the government taking the lead, since the private sector would jump at the chance to make an easy profit.

The bailout of GM is an entirely separate issue from green energy investment. It is a separate portfolio and it is done for different reasons. And THAT is why it is a conflation of issues, you twit.

Solyndra was not given any grants under George Bush. George Bush did not give any grant out to any "green technology" companies - Obama was the first one to do it - George Bush set the path to do it.

Secondly why is it that China is undercuting prices? Think maybe it's because our society wants cheap and don't care about where it's made?

And where it is proven that the government can get a $3.00 to $10.00 return into the economy for every $1.00 invested. I want to see a link on that.

You are forgetting the $1.00 that the government is using is money that was taken out of the economy and is now "nonproductive" money.

If what you say is true then GM and Solyndra would be having great returns for the government. GM still owes the government millions and with GM's stocks flat the government hasn't any choice but to hang in with GM in hopes that they will pay it back. And there are more companies out there the the Obmination gave grants to and failed but you won't hear it on the liberal news media.

BTW 1,200 employees were laid off because of the failure of the Cheby Bolt. That's a good sign isn't it.

Again, you are purposefully conflating issues. Gm was a bail-out. It saved a million domestic jobs. Solyndra was one six hundredth of government investment is green technology, something that MUST be done for economic, environmental, and foreign policy reason.

The Volt failed, and its failure was in part the negative press coming from the right wing, smearing the car with false accusations of it being more prone t catching on fire than conventional ones (it isn't, it was just another LIE by the right wing). Still no matter what the reason, 1200 jobs were lost. That's a little over one one THOUSANDTH of the jobs that were saved.

According to your own link, 61,000 thousand permanent jobs were CREATED (or projected to do so) not including the thousands more in surrounding support industries, by the programs listed on the page. The page did not list failed programs. It listed loan programs that have ended. Has Ford motor company closed? Really? You really need to learn reading comprehension.

Damn, you're ignorant. Jobs saved? How? Seriously, how the fuck did you come up with that idiotic number? People would no longer buy cars? The severe cyclical downturn wouldn't end? What kind of fucked ignorant fantasy have you dreamed up for yourself?

The public isn't out money? That's more ignorance. They paid some loan money, BUT NOT THE LOAN MONEY THAT WAS CONVERTED TO THE GOVERNMENT'S EQUITY STAKE YOU DIMWIT. The Chrysler stake has been sold off, at a loss, and the GM position is under-water too at current market prices.

You dopes probably also don't know that the bailed-out companies both filed bankruptcy. It was the non-bailed out company, Ford, that didn't. Huh, go figure, sales at Ford rebounded too as car sales generally recovered. Gosh, how'd that happen without the bail-out miracle?

The country has well functioning laws for handling industrial bankruptcies. All Obama did was bring government threats and pressure to shift recovery value away from the taxpayers and private creditors and towards the UAW. They fucked taxpayers and retiree bondholder investors to favor the union, nothing more.

Car sales rebounded. Gee, go figure, we weren't going to keep buying 30% fewer cars than are naturally scraped each year for very long. Huh, must be that bail-out. LOL.

One million saved jobs, along with other stimulus measures that saved 3-4 million OTHER jobs are precisely what allowed the rebound, dolt. It pumped money into the economy to allow demand to come back and to create a reduction in inventories. If GM had collapsed, all of the infrastructure, those companies that were its supply chain, would have collapsed as well, just as it has done in terms of the electronics industry. That infrastructure was necessary to facilitate the rebound once demand came back - hastened by stimulus dollars - and that supply chain would have gone bye-bye forever if it was not temporarily held afloat.

Ford didn't have to take stimulus money because it simply wasn't in the same trouble that GM was, despite their workers being under the very same UAW's contracts as well. But good for you in your attempt to distort the issue.

Thats's just suck foolishness. Out of the air utterly made up numbers don't count for much.

GM and Chrysler both filed bankruptcy. A "collapse" of either one wouldn't have happened given the existing bankruptcy processes in the United States. It isn't at all similar to the problems with the large financial institutions. The auto companies would've easily attracted needed capital during bankruptcy. The only difference is that the UAW wouldn't have had the administration strong arming creditors into accepting its emergence plan which heavily favored the UAW. Taxpayer and bondholder recovery value was shifted to the UAW. The UAW received recoveries on its claims near 90 cents on the dollar while bondholders, another group of largely retirees got about 30 cents. Maybe you've conveniently forgotten how the president personally demogauged those opposed to his bankruptcy emergence plan. It was the kind of thing that goes down in Russia, but not here.

Plenty of suppliers did file bankruptcy. They restructured under existing bankruptcy laws. One of the biggest interior suppliers in the business, Lear, was one of them. It all worked just fine, even without Obama.

five million jobs, the stimulus cost 830 billion, the auto bailout 60 billion. That equals $178,000 per job. We could have just cut the workers each a check for that money and we would have been ahead, in terms of stimulus. Keep the money out of the hands of the corporate board rooms, where it will be stolen for executive benefits.

Hello, is there anybody home in that brain of yours? The money wasn't simply for individuals, but to maintain a manufacturing base in the country so it didn't move overseas, like, for example, China. That's what happened to the electronics industry. See any iPads made in America lately? That manufacturing base creates jobs now and in the future. It is ongoing. It is not a one time $178,000 or whatever figure, but continuing employment into the foreseeable future. Geez, you're dense.

Stimulus that increased spending increases ALL spending. Some of it went to China. Most of it stayed here. Recipients of various stimulus dollars didn't go out first thing and buy a new LeD wide screen TV. THey fed their families first.

If they were holding of on buying cars, they did so in order to do little things like be able to get to work.

A million jobs saved gives n indication of how much infrastructure was retained here that would have vanished. If there was not bail-out, you would be excoriating Obama for doing nothing. No matter what he does or doesn't do, you would find a way of demonizing him. And while I have plenty I can't stand about this president, what you are doing is pure, transparent partisan politics.

People held off on buying cars because they had too much debt, grew concerned about the future, and some lost jobs. Cars are durable items and easily put off for a time. But with sales so far below scrappage, they weren't going to stay there for long. And they didn't.

I'm not demonizing Obama. I'm simply stating a fact. What he did for Chrysler and GM was unnecessary. Normal bankruptcy laws couldn've handled it. American Airlines is in such a bankruptcy process right now.

The government took money from the taxpayers and bondholders and gave it to the union. The government set the terms of the restructuring plan and then bullied investors into taking it, forgetting that those investors were many times retirees themselves.

His cash-for-clunker thing was a disruptive waste as well. You dingbats can't think past emotion laden bumper stickers, but try for once. That program helped drive up prices for used cars, which hurts who? Wanna tell me? It also pulled scrapage forward and flooded the scrap and recycling markets only to follow it up with a crash. It left markets confused as investors and business decision makers couldn't tell how much demand was healthy recovery and how much was just pulled forward. It even hurt charities which saw car donations fall. Yeah, and all with borrowed money from China. It was bad policy and another political gift. Nice job, community organizer!

The million jobs thing is just a ridiculous made-up number like the jobs in non-existent congressional districts. They bailed out the unions in government and the UAW. The bank bailed out has been largely repaid, this bail-out is gone forever. It delayed reform and we'll pay for price for that for years to come.

I didn't say the money shouldn't have been used to stimulate the economy. Let the government build a car factory. But don't give a corporation a blank check from the people's treasury! How many times do I have to say this before you trolls stop shilling for corporate handouts? This movement has always been against corporate welfare and GOP yes men like you aren't going to change that. If you fall for the corporate board room lie "Here, give me the money, I will give it to the workers" then you are beyond hope. How much did the CEO of GM make after the bailout? Do you support income maldistribution? It sounds like it to me.

The government should build a car factory? And you're calling ME a troll?

I have NEVER heard from ANYONE in OWS that they opposed the GM bailout. Never.

This issue was NEVER the bailouts, which were necessary, but the reasons those bailouts were required in the first place, the system that allowed Wall Street to collapse the economy with impunity. And that those banks who got bailed out turned around to screw everyone all over again. And the lack of real social services to those who don't have. It was NEVER about letting jobs get thrown in the garbage because of what the bankers did.

Was the CEO of GM greedy in terms of his compensation? No doubt. But guess what. I don't care. What I care about is that one million jobs were saved in the short term, and that a domestic manufacturer and it vast supply chain were able to continue operations and supply jobs for the foreseeable future. What's more, there was no blank check as you distortedly claim. There was a specified loan that has been mostly, if not completely, PAID BACK.

In come distribution is not a simple matter of individual CEOs making a lot of money: it is the SYSTEM of tax breaks for the rich, subsidies for Exxon, ALEC and the Kochs actually writing legislation, and so on. It is the inherent structure of capitalism itself, unfettered and unregulated that is the issue.

I favor job creation, job salvation, the end of income redistribution from the poor to the rich, and actual an reasoned approach to solve problems. Your self-appointed purism is full of nothing but inchoate rage and solves zero problems. And as to your speaking for OWS, given you hadn't bothered even joining this site until only a couple of days ago, you can take your self-righteousness and blow it out of your ass.

I have been on numerous other occupy sites and been to several GA meetings ever since this movement started. And guess what? You just proved you are a troll.

"Was the CEO of GM greedy in terms of his compensation? No doubt. But guess what. I don't care. "

A little spoonful of anger is usually all it takes for the inner troll to come out. These pro-rampant-capitalism words are not from the soul of a true occupier by any means. You don't care how much the CEO of GM made? You just want the assembly line slaves to be able to keep earning their pittance compared to the board room salaries.

Of course the government could build a car factory, or heck-just buy out GM's factories when they went out of business. Same as before, only run by the government. What is wrong with that? Do you see the salaries of the GM board room occurring in the public sector? Of course not. The government can build bomb factories, why not cars?

The point is that the CEO's salary is not a concern: the worker's salary is. And neither the government nor the CEO's should be in charge of them: the unions should. Nor, considering the government's current demonstration of utter ineptitude, political grandstanding and corruption every single day, I don't trust it to run a toilet factory at this point, let alone an industrial giant. And it certainly wouldn't run it with the worker's interests in mind. Te government is as much a part of the 1% as the board of GM is.

The weapons made for the government are mostly made by private manufacturers, not by the government directly. Warplanes are made by companies like Boeing et al. Ship building companies build destroyers and submarines. The government commissions and pays them to do it.

Government's role is not the same as the private sector's. Its job is to regulate that sector so that it does no damage. (It should also supply a substantial and vigorous safety net when people fall through the cracks, and supply the infrastructure, like schools and roads, for the country's citizens, including its businesses, to function.)

The government have the authority to simply nationalize industries, not by current law anyway. What it COULD do was loan money to a major employer in order to save jobs and keep that industry's infrastructure and supply chain in the country. And I have zero problem with that as long as the result was in fact jobs. Since the bulk of those jobs were union ones, they happened to be good paying jobs as well.

Once again, your contention that the government gave GM a blank check is simply a lie. It was a loan with conditions, and virtually all of it has been paid back. You can fault the capitalist system for all sorts of abuses legitimately, but as long as this country chooses capitalism as its economic system, no matter how stupidly, you can't fault the government for doing its best to make that system work for ordinary workers. Doing so only demonstrates your unfocussed rage, not my anger.

I thought you were trolling, now you're hating on the ability of the government to get things done. They make spaceships, ya know. I think they can probably handle a car.

You are right, this is about the worker's salaries. Do you think there is an unlimited amount of money available? The 100 million the executives stole AFTER THE BAILOUT is 100 million the workers could have had. Every dollar spent on the middlemen in the board room is a dollar the people doing the actual work aren't getting. This runs 100% counter to what OWS stands for.

I don't support or denigrate the fat cats: they are not my concern. Te workers are. And although GM laid off some workers (I don't believe your figure at face value, since you have shown your propensity for distortion) The government loan saved one MILLION jobs that would have otherwise been lost.

The government LOANED the money. It did not purchase the company or 60% of it.

The government has NO LEGAL OR PRACTICAL OPTION to start building its own cars. Your fantasy is just that: a pure fantasy. And NOt all government programs are doing great compares to the private sector. Some are and some aren't; it depends on what kind of programs. What's more, most government programs are contracts with private companies. That's how we got the interstate highways, rural electrification, the internet, and hundreds of other government successes.

Unlike you, apparently I am GLAD that one million jobs were saved.

As to the way corporations are structured, and the intrinsic problems with capitalism, I actually agree with you. That must be changed. But the GM loans were a good thing considering the emergency nature of the issue, and given no laws have been passed that would remotely allow the government to do as you suggest at the current time.

You still never answered me, what law grants the government the authority to loan GM X amount of money in exchange for 60% of the stock BUT NOT give them x amount of money in exchange for 100% of the stock? IT is the same authority.

What you call principles are nothing more than rantings and rage. And you can stop putting words in my mouth while you're at it. You clearly don't embrace everyone who wants to join the movement and be productive. "Get lost" is hardly a welcoming sentiment.

I am for the workers. I don't care about if someone makes money as long as ordinary people are doing well. I don't care if one person has a bigger boat as long as the water rises for everybody. OWS is not, and never has been, a movement about screwing the 1%, but of insuring equity for the 99%..The government loan to GM helped a little in that respect. It took nothing from workers, and kept good paying uNion jobs going. There was no legal alternative, wishful fantasies aside. In the future, maybe there will be, but not now. And hopefully, the movement will be successful enough that no next time will even be necessary.

You choose to hate the 1%. I choose instead to love the 99%, and applaud whatever can be done for all of us.

And by the way, I was literally risking my life, and getting beaten up for unionizing workplaces while you were still in diapers.

You are not for workers, you are supporting the fat cats in the GM board room living high off of the efforts of the actual workers. Did you miss the news that GM laid off 10,000 workers? Did any of them come back as a condition of the bailout? Of course not. You call this ordinary people "doing well"?

What on earth are you fooling yourself into believing? What law allows the government to purchase a 60% temporary stake in a car company but not a 100% permanent one? You just don't want to believe there was another option, because you like the status quo..

Let's explore the cause behind corporations going under. What causes that? It is caused by the fat cats in the board room skimming off too much of the efforts of the workers, that's what. GM would have been fine if the execs had taken salaries of "only" ten times what the average worker made. Do you see people making absurd amounts of money in government? Of course not, and all the government programs are doing great compared to the private sector.

Only when the flood of corporate greed is stopped will there not need to be a "next time" for GM. The board room will be back begging for more handouts.

The Federal National Mortgage Association and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Fannie May and Freddie Mac) were GSE's and were under special charter and laws that made them very different legally from other private businesses. They were both government created and government chartered, and they had a direct line of credit to the Treasury. As such, they could be placed in conservatorship by the government perfectly legally. GM, nor virtually any other private business can be subject to that kind of takeover by law. (You might notice, too, that after these two entities were placed in conservatorship, they still continued to foreclose on homeowners by the millions, something OWS is fighting against tooth and nail. So much for your contention that government takeover are automatically better for people.)

All you do is conflate issues and engaged is name-calling. You condemn anyone and everyone that doesn't meet your "purity" standards of revolutionary, but are largely ignorant of the issues you criticize. That makes you the worst kind of troll, the kind that gives OWS a bad name. If your ilk would prevail OWS would consist of a few dozen addle-headed screaming "purists" and no one else, and the movement would die a very quick death. Perhaps, while you were marching in your narcissistic venomous zeal, you didn't notice that you were standing next to a Union worker whose job may have been saved by a bailout, or a committed liberal reformer instead of a militant revolutionary, all of whom OWS and it founders have welcomed into its midst with open arms and open hearts. You would reject such people, and doom the movement in the process.

Addle-headed screaming purists? That is what you call people with principle? Look, I embrace everyone that comes here and wants to join the movement and be productive. You are not. You yourself admitted that you didn't care how much the board room of GM siphoned off the worker's salaries, that could not run any more counter to what OWS stands for. What happened to OWS's anti-establishment streak? Now we just blindly abandon principle and do whatever the government says? No, we don't and you are not going to drag us into that hole. I see what you are doing, plain as day. Get us to abandon our prinipled anti-greed message and say it's okay here or there. Then you and your troll friends have us where you want us, when we will rationalize anything that sounds good on the surface and abandon our principle. Get lost.

I have no problem with your statement that executives stole 100s of millions of dollars and that is what SOME of OWS is protesting. It is among the reasons I support what OWS is all about (among many other reasons).

But you are asserting that the car bailouts were wrong because the government either should have a) nationalized GM, which it has zero authority to do, or b) build their own factory in time to save a million jobs, which takes years or c) that the government is not part of the one percent and can therefore be trusted. Any way you look at it, your assertion is utterly unfounded and completely irrational. And unfounded assertions do not lend support to the goals of OWS.

Didn't have the authority? What, are you some kind of whacked out originalist now? What is different about Fannie May and Freddie Mac that could not have happened to GM? Of course they should have nationalized.

Remember the jobs they were counting in Congressional districts that didn't even exist? Remember too how they were counting "jobs" on an FTE basis? If you were some idiotic and worthless not-for-profit with 100 people and gave them all a 5% raise from stimulus money, that counted as 5 jobs. It was all utterly made up.

The truth is that most of the bailout, the part that was gone forever unlike the banking bailout which was paid back, merely bailed out unions. It bailed out the UAW and it bailed out government unions across the country. Money thrown at the states went to help the unions avoid serious conversations about reform. In that way, we borrowed money from China and all we really got was a missed chance at creating a long-term benefit.

Provide citations proving that liberal and progressive Americans support Stalin, Mao and Ceausescu. If you're unable to provide incontrovertible evidence for those three figures, reasonable substitutes include Fidel Castro, Kim Jong Il (or Kim Jong Un) and Robert Mugabe. Since Hugo Chavez gives tons of free heating oil to needy Americans every year, he has his finger on the scale so commercials with Robert Kennedy Jr. don't count (sorry, I know you have that bookmarked).

Also, you will provide incontrovertible proof that your champions on the corporatist right do NOT support doing business with anti-capitalist authoritarian dictatorships, starting with China, but also including Angola, Sudan, Libya (pre-revolution), Iraq (under Saddam) and Iran.

Your simplistic view of history's atrocities shows me who is an ignorant fool. So do you really believe that if gov't disappeared tomorrow, that Stalin and Mao type people would vanish? No they would not. What they would do is become CEOs of multinational corporations and kill your ass that way. Your ability to blame gov't for all the world's miseries not only makes you blind to your own imperfections but makes you naive to the human condition and the follies of the rational mind. It's not the Gov't, stupid. It's the human condition. Those that want a small gov't are just as humanistic as those that want more gov't. And for you to believe one is right and one is wrong, shows that you are either rich and well insulated from a gov't shut down, or an idiot high on ideology. I, being a working class stiff, don't trust my employer to be more benevolent than my governor. That would make me a right wing dip stick, dumbed down by my own view of what America should be. As if..

you implied that when you use gov't to get shit done you are a Mao or a Stalinistic totalitarian. To me, that means you believe gov't is bad, no ands, ifs or buts about it. Reread every post you have written on this site and tell me i'm wrong that i believe that you believe gov't is the problem. You are either an American dreamer of the good ol' days, as if, or an idiot who knows not what he says. Anyone who uses the knee jerk reactionary words, totalitarian, stalinist, communist, socialist, is either an idiot or a rich man who controls the gov't and wishes to shame others out of using the gov't.

Posted 18 hours ago on March 15, 2012, 8:04 p.m. EST by toukarin (309) This content is user submitted and not an official statement 6. "Well, $500,000 a Year Might Sound Like a Lot, but I'm Hardly Rich." 5. "Hey, I Worked Hard to Get What I Have!" 4. "If I Can Do It, So Can You!" 3. "You're Just Jealous Because I Made It and You Didn't!" 2. "You Shouldn't Be Punishing the Very People Who Make This Country Work!" 1. "Stop Asking for Handouts! I Never Got Help from Anybody!"